foxbat

Which is really odd since your name is Tim.

I haven't had a chance to look at stats yet, but anecdotally I wonder if the that issue of availability also comes into play. I recall growing up in the 70s in Texas where the idea of guns in pickup trucks was a norm, but I also recall the preponderance of semi-auto or even large caliber carry wasn't as widespread. Most guys that had their "guns in their racks" that were carrying .22s. There were some guys that had hunting rifles, but they were in the trucks, not year round, but only during the season. That is, .30-06 and .30-30s didn't show up in trucks until after deer season opened and shotguns didn't show up until duck/turkey season opened. Similarly, as kids were introduced to firepower beyond pellet/BB guns, it seemed to me that single-shot was the preponderance of gun types. Most of my friends that had gotten their first "gunpowder" arms tended to end up with single shot or bolt-action .22 or single-shot or double-barrel shotguns. Even in the higher calibers, I'd say the mix of kids at my high school that had higher caliber rifles, the vast majority were bolt action or single-shot/single-load. I'm pretty sure that semi-auto was available in decent numbers, but it seemed that, even among enthusiasts that there was a much more measured progression/use. Single-shot was kind of an automatic default in terms of consideration for a first gun. Again, I haven't looked at stats, but I get the feeling that semi-auto is a default and calibers are considered the larger the better ... especially amongst the general public.

There's a company here in town that on their radio ads tout the need that everyone should own at least four guns: Handgun for personal defense Shotgun for home defense A rifle to put food on the table One for defense of civil liberties ... I don't recall the exact wording, but it was kind of a dance around in case the government gets too invasive

I don't know that I completely agree with this particular adage. I recall being without supervision A LOT as a kid, but I do recall realizing that even though my folks weren't there, I was "being watched." I knew that whatever I did had ramifications and accountability when they did get home. I often came home after school and let myself in, getting my own after-school-snack, starting my homework when I had it, getting ready for work when I had it and then getting on my bike or, when licensed, my car and getting to work. On weekends, I'd get up at the crack of dawn and my friends and I would be gone all day "roaming." The biggest thing that I remember/see as a difference between now and then is home accountability. Most of the guys that I hung out with had similar parents and we all knew that, if you got in trouble with the school, the neighbor, the cops, etc., that was going to be the least of your concerns because your parents were going to be 100 times worse. The one kid in our group whose household wasn't that way eventually ended up leaving our group and getting into all kinds of trouble with authority as early as 13 years old and then beyond. He was one of a group of about a dozen of us. Today, it seems to be like, in a group of a dozen kids, 6-9 of them are going to have parents that, when their kid gets into trouble are going to try to claim that their kid is blameless or that their kid shouldn't be held accountable or that it's no big deal. Kids who grow up in that environment tend to see life as having very few consequences and also end up not recognizing levels of response in how they do things. If they are blameless, defended, and exonerated by their parents even when they do wrong, there's nothing that pushes them to think about not doing wrong. Seen this in many cases where parents go above and beyond to try to make it seem like damage done by their kids is nothing and going after the person whose property is damaged and claiming that they are blowing it out of proportion rather than owning up to the damage and holding their own kids accountable. We also see, in the other forum, some of the simplest early forms of this with coaches talking about how parents are quick to attack a coach over holding his own players accountable ... the parents want to exonerate their kid's bad behavior or brush it away.

I think you may be overlooking the fact that Barr had long been suspect ... from around the time he was maneuvering Weinberger's pardon and working to help shield the equivalent of two administrations from the Iran-Contra fallout as then-AG. He ended up getting there when he "auditioned" for his current AG role. I do find it rich though that there's talk of discrediting an investigator after the last two years of such against Mueller.

A big reason that this one hasn't lingered ... morbid or not, is body count not political affiliations or immigrant status. North Carolina was similar. Coverage tends to be tied to body count and, again morbid or not, sometimes the age of the kids. Had it been one or two kids under the age of ten, the coverage would linger longer regardless of source. Two teenagers close to graduating, probably less. Ten teenagers closer to graduation, more coverage. It's become more commonplace that it takes more for it to register at any level of sustainability in news cycles unless people push it to stay in the forefront with things like protests, show appearances, etc.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2019/05/13/felicity-huffman-plead-guilty-college-admissions-scandal-rick-singer-varsity-blues-sat-cheating/1151158001/ FTA: The former "Desperate Housewives" actress admitted to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud for paying Rick Singer, the nationwide scheme's alleged mastermind, $15,000 to have someone correct SAT answers for her oldest daughter. As part of a plea deal, federal prosecutors recommended Huffman receive a four-month prison term, substantially lower than the maximum 20 years the charges carry. A sentencing hearing for the star was set for Sept. 13.

I'm not seeing silence ... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspected-colorado-stem-shooter-was-bully-made-jokes-about-school-n1004181 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/05/10/colorado-school-shooting-updates-unanswered-questions/1157356001/ http://time.com/5585312/school-shooting-colorado-stem/ https://nypost.com/2019/05/10/colorado-school-shooting-suspect-cracked-jokes-about-killing-classmates/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-stem-school-highlands-ranch-shooting-suspects-devon-erickson-female-juvenile-law-enforcements-radar/ https://www.vox.com/2019/5/7/18536054/colorado-shooting-stem-school-highlands-ranch-denver https://kdvr.com/2019/05/10/investigation-into-school-shooting-is-intense-and-time-intensive/ https://www.npr.org/2019/05/07/721200551/multiple-people-injured-in-colorado-school-shooting https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27404389/colorado-stem-school-shooting-8-year-old/

Yes it is. So is the idea that somehow or another cursing's acceptance/use is somehow an indication of the slide of civilization.

Best not to ask for no powdered sugar on your french toast in that case. 😄

Or the evangelical shift on political candidates.

It ain't easy.

Already shown not to be attributable to Patton.

I would agree ... but just as the clause "all men are created equal" had an implied asterisk, I similarly am not going to take a single line in a song tied to nationalism with a religious beat to be a 100% guarantee to all who hear or sing it. Interesting too that my statement/point refuting your point wasn't addressed ... I was just summarily dismissed. Your argument then is with me and not the idea. In that case, we will need to agree to disagree because I take interest in discussing ideas.

While I appreciate the fervor in using that one line to make it seem different, both songs are certain in the correctness of their cause and call upon the backing of religion or religious guidance to vanquish those who stand opposed. Also, while I certainly appreciate the idea that it sounds "good in a song," let's be perfectly honest that the United States' causes are mixed bags. Recall that less than a year after The Battle Hymn of the Republic was written, Lincoln wrote the following to Horace Greeley: I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. So if Lincoln was willing to let slavery stand for the sake of the Union, then who would the Union soldiers be making free with their deaths? National fervor, especially when tied to religion, always seems to be noble when our own and fanatical when someone else's ... hence the fact that I'm able to look at both without getting overly riled about either. I have to be realistic that it's very possible that the same folks who wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." had some who did it holding their nose along with others who did it with a very straight face and saw nothing out of whack with, among other things, their own religious views.

In all honesty, it has a semblance of the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Also, La-Marseillaise https://www.thoughtco.com/la-marseillaise-frances-national-anthem-4080565.

As opposed to several on "the other side" ... https://psmag.com/news/new-study-confirms-again-that-race-not-economics-drove-former-democrats-to-trump

Naw ... Bradley's a pauper. Rich Uncle Pennybags ... this guy

I think the Monopoly Guy is still available.

As well as schools.

This shtick again? The fact that a visit to the White House for a one-time event might have an air of sophistication/imagination to it doesn't seem to be too much to hope for. The bar has been set low when someone not being excited about a warmed-up fast food meal is considered "elitist."

https://news.yahoo.com/richard-lugar-helped-securing-soviet-arsenal-dies-001929869.html IMHO one of the last great statesmen of the world.

Then why are you giving me so much grief over it if everyone can read a graph and do basic math? And why am I the jerk for not including everything that you would have posted or would like to have had posted? @swordfish posted a picture and I posted one too, with a couple of links. Mine just happened to have a different take on the subject than the one that he presented. And why the name calling? I merely posted an item that showed the details behind the fact that the picture posted was in error. I also posted the specific data, in total, along with the reasoning and support behind it. I also posted another article that actually speaks directly to potential climate change implications in that harbor and specifically Fort Denison which is the structure in the picture. So we can't have discussions or disagreements anymore about data without it turning into a shouting match with insults?